29 March: Just Another Day

There's some confusion over whether the 29 March might still be "Brexit Day", but that is not legally possible. 

Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union governs how member states may leave - by giving two years' notice. The UK gave notice, but couldn't agree a deal in that time, so asked for an extension. The European Council decision on 22 March approving that request is a legal instrument that immediately extended the leaving date under Article 50(3) to either 12 April or 22 May 2019 (on certain conditions which the UK agreed). But even those deadlines could change - or disappear altogether.

If the UK's House of Commons does not approve the current draft of the withdrawal agreement during the week commencing 25 March 2019, the UK will leave the EU on 12 April 2019 unless before then: 

• The European Council, in agreement with the UK, unanimously decides on another extension to the Article 50 period; or 
• The UK revokes the Article 50 notice; or 
• A withdrawal agreement is concluded with a different commencement date. 

If the House of Commons approves the withdrawal agreement in the week commencing 25 March 2019, the UK will leave the EU on 22 May 2019. Certain other conditions apply, but these are the new dates. 

The Brexit saga is far from over.

UK Government Must Revoke Article 50 Notice By 11pm On 29 March

The UK Parliament has recently rejected both the UK's proposed withdrawal agreement with the EU and any potential 'no deal' scenario (which some refer to as 'trading on WTO terms'). Today, the government is asking Parliament to vote on whether it wishes the government to seek an 'extension' of the expiry date of the UK's "Article 50 notice" to withdraw from the EU, from 29 March to 30 June, which would require the unanimous consent of all other EU member states. This is both illogical and unnecessary.

The European Court of Justice has already ruled, however, that the UK can freely withdraw its Article 50 notice at any time before midnight UK time (11pm in Brussels) on 29 March, without needing any consent from the EU member states, and without preventing it from giving another notice at a later date.

An extension of the current Article 50 notice period is also pointless, since the EU will not negotiate the current 'deal' any further and Parliament will not allow a no deal situation. Relying on an extension to Article 50, which the EU has to agree to, is also surrendering the UK's sovereignty and control over the terms of any departure to the EU. Revoking Article 50 is soley within the UK's control and allows it to determine the timing of any second notice it might wish to give in due course.

Therefore, the only way for the government to deliver on Parliament’s “instructions” (a term that Theresa May likes to uses to refer to the non-binding EU referendum, so must accept when referring to ‘non-binding’ Parliamentary votes) in rejecting her 'deal' and ‘no deal’ is to revoke the Article 50 notice.

The Prime Minister complains that Parliament only states what it does not want, rather than what it wants. Yet she repeatedly presents Parliament with the same choice between her 'deal' and 'no deal' when it has rejected both, and now wants an extension to do that again. She cannot have it both ways. There must be no extension and the Article 50 notice must be withdrawn. 

Another government can always try to muster support for Brexit at a later date, as the ECJ has said is permissible.

Brexit: WTO Terms Are The Chasm, Not The Bridge!

Leave Means Leave campaigners like to say that "trading on WTO terms" is a "bridge" from EU membership to an EU free trade deal. 

Not true. But this helps paint a picture of exactly what Brexit really means.

The WTO was set up in 1995 as a way for all countries to agree ways to trade more freely with each other ("trade deals") and some very basic rules for fair trade if they cannot agree a trade deal ("WTO terms").

So think of "WTO terms" as the chasm or valley between two countries who want to trade with each other. 

It's a long way down, because those are the best/worst trading terms that all countries say should apply where there is no other deal agreed.

In other words, to improve on WTO terms, you need a "trade deal" between countries - like membership of the same regional or other type of free trade bloc (like the EU, for example) - or a "free" trade agreement between the trade bloc and a non-member country (like EU-Canada).

The free trade agreement or treaty (such as EU membership) is the bridge, and WTO terms is the chasm that the countries are trying to get their goods and services across. 

Right now, the UK's goods and services are trundling to and from the EU across the WTO chasm via the bridge of EU membership. And a wise government would not remove the bridge of EU membership without building an alternative bridge over the WTO chasm.

It takes 5 to 10 years to build a bridge over the WTO chasm. But after nearly 3 years of negotiation, Theresa May only managed to get until the end of 2020 - not long enough to build a new bridge, even if she had any real idea how to build it.

So, May's deal and No Deal both involve the UK not so much "driving off a cliff" but "falling into the WTO chasm" as the bridge of EU membership collapses.

The only way to avoid this is to revoke (withdraw) the Article 50 notice before it expires on 29 March and try to leave again later (if anyone can figure out how to do that safely).

The #Brexidiots Know The Game Is Up But Are Committed To More Lies And Deception

David Davis wrote an extraordinary letter to Theresa May in December 2017. 

He whinged that the EU has been explaining to UK businesses the risks associated with the UK leaving the EU with "No Deal". The EU says that, to minimise the impact of Brexit, contracts will need to be renegotiated and EEA-facing operations will need to move into the remaining 27 EU countries ('Brexodus').  

Davis claims these explanations are a problem because the EU has not made any "reference to the possible alternative arrangements that might be agreed".  But he admits that the chance of any successful legal challenge to require the EU to mention such potential arrangements is "low" and "high risk politically and financially". 

In other words, Davis has no confidence that alternative arrangements will be agreed to prevent the need for the Brexodus of the portion of any business that relies on trade with the EEA or EU trade deals with other countries - jobs included. 

This means the very real choice facing the UK is either "No Deal" (with the consequences explained by the EU) or to withdraw its Article 50 notice and remain in the EU.

Instead, Davis promises two things: he will "continue to press our case" with the EU - which he admits has a low chance of success - and engage in "greater communication with UK businesses to provide assurances where we can." 

But given the EU's strong legal position it is clear that reliable assurances cannot be given. Any such assurances would be yet further lies and deception from the Leave camp.

This means that remaining in the EU is the only viable option for the UK, and the Brexidiots know it but are unwilling to admit it. Yet.